ArticlePreventive medicine reports2017
Does a grill menu redesign influence sales, nutrients purchased, and consumer acceptance in a worksite cafeteria?
Article in Preventive medicine reports, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Increasing Access and Availability of Nutrient-Dense Foods at United States Marine Corps Food Venues Is Feasible and Profitable.Nutrients · 2025Article
- Successful Incorporation of a Plant-Based Menu Into a Large Academic Hospital.American journal of lifestyle medicineArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Worksite cafeterias are compelling venues to improve diet quality through environmental changes. We conducted a pre-post study to evaluate how a cafeteria-initiated grill menu redesign influenced sales, revenue, and nutrient content of foods purchased. Secondly, we evaluated consumer opinions about menu changes to inform practices for worksite environment interventions. Monthly sales data (2012-2015) were used to compute gross sales and revenue of entrées and side dishes pre-post menu changes. Alternative protein sources replaced red meat; nutrient composition and nutrients purchased were compared using Food Pro software. Consumer responses were queried using online surveys; open-ended responses were analyzed using NVivo. Differences in sales and nutrient content pre-post menu redesign were tested with Wilcoxon Rank Sum tests. Gross sales of entrées (61 vs. 222 servings/month; p = 0.01) and side dishes (120 vs. 365 servings/month; p = 0.001) increased more than three-fold post-menu changes. Revenue from entrées (312 vs. 1144 USD/month; p = 0.01) and side dishes (238 vs. 914 USD/month; p = 0.001) also increased; per entrée, consumers purchased significantly more unsaturated fat (5 g), and less saturated fat (3 g) and sodium (100 mg). For side dishes, they purchased fewer calories (48 kcal) and unsaturated fat (2.9 g), but more fiber (1.8 g), and sodium (260 mg). Four themes emerged from consumer responses: the importance of 1) variety, novelty, choice; 2) cost, affordability, value; 3) health; and 4) food quality, taste. Menu redesign can improve nutrient content, while also increasing sales and revenue. Multi-dimensional assessment of the nutritional, consumer, and retailer implications is desirable practice for enacting similar environmental changes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.